Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per pretty much everyone. I find this result especially justified in light of the prior years' discussions that have been cited. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)'''

2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have been unable to find any reliable sources covering this work significantly and in direct detail. There's one article from SFX mentioning who the director will be, and that's it. It's not multiple independent reliable sources (the BBC source is not independent). It's not significant coverage. It's not direct, detailed coverage. It's not notable. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► condominium ─╢ 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - We have this discussion every year, with the same tired arguments. Last time was in July 2010. Obvious notability, covered in various media. We have things to say, such as director, cast, character names, and elements of the story. Hektor (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have this discussion every year, with the same tired arguments. WP:NOTAGAIN. Obvious notability... – WP:Clearly notable – ...covered in various media. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Can you actually cite any direct, detailed coverage? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you consider Wales on line as an independent reliable source ? Hektor (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Absolutely agree with Hektor. The episode is confirmed, so it will happen, and the episodes are notable as we have one on every Doctor Who story. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The episodes are notable as we have one on every Doctor Who story. Meaningless and in violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chief Counting Officer ─╢ 10:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, we have three sources, BBC as primary, SFX which explicitely says that they did some extra research to find information which was not in the primary source (the name of the Director) and Wales on Line which provides pictures of the lead actress which were not in the primary source and confirms that filming has started. So what are we missing here ? How many independent reliable sources do we need ? Hektor (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In last twenty four hours Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Metro and NME have picked up the press release and commented on it. Edgepedia (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors may also be interested in reading previous deletion discussions about the Doctor Who Christmas Specials in 2007, 2008 and 2010. Edgepedia (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and TT does not even have the excuse of not knowing the subject matter at hand. Agathoclea (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Dr Who is so big in the UK that this episode would be notable (even more so) if between now and xmas it was cancelled. Unless the world would end before then, but then we would no longer worry about notability. Agathoclea (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have a reason to assert that this subject is notable, or are you just making a crap WP:ITSNOTABLE argument along with some gratuitous personal abuse? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► belonger ─╢ 14:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * why repeat what already has been said. You compare the amount of mainstream media coverage for every Dr Who episode with that of any other series. You compare the media coverage of this specific episode existing today with anything else scheduled at this xmas you notice that this stands out. You want to delete something that is covered independently in diverse reliable sources. Agathoclea (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability does not require that the sources be immediately there to show that it is notable - as long as there's a reasonable assurance (and in this case, a special episode of one of the UK's biggest programs) that notable sources will be apparent, and otherwise not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, then we keep them. Of course, what's already given would make it notable regardless.  If anything I personally would have waited per WP:HAMMER for a proper episode title, merging the details of the special into the 6th series article, but this is far from a gross violation of that. --M ASEM  (t) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment more coverage from The Guardian, Photo of Claire Skinner on set filming (Daily Mirror) and the Radio Times. Edgepedia (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Enough sourcing exists and is in the article that a standalone article is justifiable. WP:GNG, and exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL are both satisfied. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep No brainer. Move on.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The BBC release a press release and this is commented by several independent sources, in a few cases adding detail. If there was less comment we would have a paragraph at List_of_Doctor_Who_serials (as I've seen nothing to say this is part of series 6), and this would redirect to that. Edgepedia (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the points made above. /Julle (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.